Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Controlling Carbon Dioxide Emissions

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Senators Ready a Bill on Greenhouse Gases; Cuts Deeper Than House's, Carbon Offsets Cheaper. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will unveil a bill Wednesday that aims to make deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions in the near and long term while setting a limit on the cost of carbon allowances, according to several sources and a close-to-final version of the bill obtained by The Washington Post. (washingtonpost.com)".

We are now entering into an area of complete folly. Reduction of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is intended to alleviate global warming. However there is no scientific data to support that assumption.

Consider that as you pass a law which will restrict carbon dioxide emission, and you find that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration decreases, but global warming increases, what will you do? The obvious answer is that you will further restrict carbon dioxide emission in one, two, or multiple stages, until it reaches zero. You will simultaneously check what has happened to global warming and may very well find that your actions of carbon dioxide emission reduction have had no effect. You are then faced with the classical definition of insanity of continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result. Insanity in a single person is not a basic societal problem, but when you aid in bankrupting the US based on international politics, you and your associates will be doing extreme damage.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

It's Not the Climate. It's the Money

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Fate of US Climate Bill Casts Shadow Over Bangkok Climate Talks. The fate of US carbon emission cap and trade legislation weighed heavily on delegates at United Nations climate talks which started today in Bangkok, with the Americans saying delays in passing the bill could deter commitments from other nations. Negotiations on a new UN climate pact have been hindered by a general unwillingness to commit to firm emissions targets, and a refusal by developing countries to sign a deal until the west guarantees tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance - something the richer nations have so far refused to do. (guardian.co.uk)".

Now here we are getting down to reality. Note that developing countries will only support carbon emission reductions if the West, including the US, "guarantees tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance". The developing countries can establish that position only from two possibilities. These are: 1.) They don't really believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have any significant effect on forming a more unfavorable climate. They only want the money, and will use any mix or other excuse to obtain it. 2.) They may at least partially believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on forming a more unfavorable climate, but the money is more important, and they are willing to gamble (force the US to cooperate).

Note also that other nations, presumably Western Europe and the Far East, are unwilling to commit to firm CO2 emission targets. This is another indication that the use of the Greenhouse Gas Myth was to reorganize a world power structure involving energy usage. The US is bound to be a loser in any such reorganization.

I repeat that there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide exist. Many of your Congressional Associates have been duped into believing the myth, but there is still time for an awakening.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

China on Climate Change

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S., China Seek to Reignite Global Talks on Climate Change. The world's two biggest producers of greenhouse gases sought to build momentum Tuesday for stalled efforts to craft a global agreement to limit emissions, with China pledging to make sweeping changes by 2020 and President Obama exhorting world leaders to act to avert catastrophe. (latimes.com)".

This is somewhat surprising. The Chinese are reasonably good scientists and intelligent researchers. I doubt that they have overlooked the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the theory of greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is considered a part. In all likelihood, this is a political maneuver, which you as an expert may be able to decipher.

For a starter, let's consider year 2006 data. US emission of carbon dioxide per capita was 19 metric tons. China emission was 4.6 metric tons. If we set 19 metric tons as the baseline and establish a cut of 50%, the US will have to cut 9.5 metric tons to achieve the new maximum of 9.5 metric tons. China will also be allowed 9.5 metric tons and will have to make no cuts. In fact, China will be able to increase its CO2 emissions by 4.9 metric tons and still be within the new maximum.

Since most of the world's energy is produced from fossil fuel burning, with subsequent CO2 emission, the country with the highest CO2 emission per capita has the highest standard of living. US citizens presently have a higher standard of living than the Chinese. However some arbitrary maneuvering of numbers, such as the above, can quickly equalize the standards of living. I doubt that most Americans would want that.

Friday, September 25, 2009

New Advocacy Group Opposing CapTradeTrade

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "New Groups Revive the Debate Over Causes of Climate Change. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) may be grappling with health care, but in Montana a new advocacy group opposed to climate legislation called C02 Is Green is taking aim at the next big battle for Congress. (washingtonpost.com)".
I have sent the new advocacy group a congratulatory message on their position. I stated also that I have for years been soliciting scientific information proving the existence of greenhouse gases and that carbon dioxide is a member of that group. In the absence of receiving any information, I can only conclude that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, is bogus and a myth which has been forced to public acceptance.
Hopefully, Congress realizes this and will not squander tremendous amounts of money trying to control climate through fictitious greenhouse gases, when such is obviously impossible.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Regulatory Control Power Companies

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "States Can Sue Utilities Over Emissions, U.S. Panel Rules A two-judge panel of a federal appeals court has ruled that big power companies can be sued by states and land trusts for emitting carbon dioxide. The decision, issued Monday, overturns a 2005 District Court decision that the question was political, not judicial. (nytimes.com)".
I agree that this is a logical application of the law. Municipalities, state, and federal regulatory agencies must have legal control and policing power over private industry and commerce. However, the public will expect such control to be logical and evenhanded consistent with technological and financial considerations. Industry and commerce must also have the ability to appeal to the courts on any regulations which they feel are unnecessary or deleterious.
I see no need for Congress to enter this aspect of the dispute at this time, even though it is directly concerned with one of the major issues of our time, which is climate control.

Climate Control at the United Nations

E-mail to Congress:

I just heard Pres. Obama's address to the United Nations. It was a beautiful description of his plan to eliminate a witch, which he has now identified as carbon dioxide. He would have made the old Salem Witch Hunters jealous by his eloquence.
It is interesting to consider how the President has deviated from standard witch hunt practice. Most witch hunts involve finding a candidate witch, proving it is the witch, and finally conducting execution of the witch. In the president's program, he has found the witch in the form of carbon dioxide, makes no effort in proving it is a witch, and is now conducting the process of execution.
I have said before that no one has yet come forth with data showing that carbon dioxide is a witch, to the extent that is destroying our climate. The early invention of the term "greenhouse gas" was a theory and remains such.
The President's address was enthusiastically received by the UN audience for several reasons. First, he is an eloquent and interesting speaker. He is a major representative of the sugar daddy (US), which supports each of the UN representatives in a luxurious New York style. Lastly, he has promised to dump significant amounts of US cash on underprivileged countries to fight greenhouse gases. Note that a heavy majority of UN members are underprivileged countries.
I realize that the House of Representatives has already fallen into the trap of accepting greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) as a fact and that House members appear to be so egocentric, they believe they can control world climate by control of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. This is a ridiculous assumption, and there is always time for the House to reconsider its position. The Senate has not previously made such a commitment, and all members of both the House and Senate should be astute to absolutely identifying a witch before that witch is persecuted at great expense to US citizens.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Cost of Climate Control

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Firms Start to See Climate Change As Barrier to Profit. As the real-world impacts of climate change begin to materialize and regulation of greenhouse gases appears more likely, corporate America has begun to grapple with a challenging question: How do you quantify the risks associated with climate change? The answer depends on one's perspective. But companies are beginning to show increased willingness to disclose the extent to which they're contributing to global warming and what they're doing to keep it from harming their business. (washingtonpost.com)".
Companies are traditionally subservient to government for several reasons. Government has the legal and police power to control any company action. Unless the government is completely transformed into socialism, government realizes it needs private industry for supply of goods and services. This minor hope of avoiding complete takeover is enough to generally justify private industry cooperation.
The Obama Administration has decided on climate control. Private industry sees no reasonable basis for opposition. It's only basic requirement is to maintain its existence, through generation of profit. It will accept any government regulation necessary to achieve that end. Private industry also knows that it can protect its profit margin by increasing consumer prices to cover climate control costs, even if such climate control costs are unnecessary. Private industry also recognizes that it can only do so with the agreement of the Obama Administration.
In it's effort to fawn on government, private industry is willing to contribute information ostensibly to show how t it has been contributing to global warming and its present efforts to reduce same. This is being done for political reasons, without any scientific basis.
As members of Congress, do not be deceived into thinking that there is a real basis for climate control based on industry support. Voters do not recognize many times what they are sacrificing in the long run, and industry is no different.

Coal Versus Natural Gas

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Energy Executives Give Natural Gas a New Push. Executives from some of the nation's largest energy producers are lobbying Congress for changes to a House-passed climate change measure that they say overlooks the benefits of natural gas and gives an unfair advantage to coal. Under a new ad-hoc umbrella organization known as America's Natural Gas Alliance, the business leaders are focused on making sure their industry doesn't get ignored by senators assembling their own climate-change bill. (chron.com)".
There is no indication here on the technical or economic basis on which coal obtains an unfair advantage over natural gas as an energy source. However, the likelihood is that climate control is the basis of the argument and particularly concerns the matter of carbon dioxide.
There is a ready solution to this problem. Do not have any climate control bill. I have repeatedly asked persons or groups to send me technical data which shows that carbon dioxide is involved in any aspect of man-made global warming. No one has seen fit to do so. I presume it's because no such data exists. Therefore, it would seem unreasonable for you folks in Washington to try to control something that doesn't need control and in so doing establish antagonism between different groups of basic energy suppliers.
Look at this simply and not simplistically. There is no need to control carbon dioxide. Therefore, there is no need for a climate control bill. Let the coal diggers continue to dig for coal and use it to make electricity. Let the natural gas producers continue to drill wells for increased production of natural gas. Hopefully, the latter will be able to develop the technology to access clathrates, for which there is evidence of very large quantities of natural gas availability.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Carbon Dioxide Cap And Trade

EIN News says, "Cap-and-Trade Memos Fire Up the Skeptics. Climate-change legislation might be on the Senate's back burner, but the heat's still on climate politics. The latest flare-up occurred this week when the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which questions whether human and industrial activity is linked to global warming, released a one-page internal Treasury Department memo from March estimating potential government revenue from a cap-and-trade climate bill at $100 billion to $200 billion a year. The memo assumed that 100 percent of the emission permits would be auctioned, unlike in the plan approved by the House in June. The Treasury had blacked out a phrase at the end of the following sentence: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of . . ." (washingtonpost.com)".
Congratulations to the Competitive Enterprise Institute for their position in recognizing that there is no valid scientific evidence that human and industrial activity is linked to global warming. I would modify that a bit to insert the word "significant".
The Institute has also put its finger on the key reason why the Administration continues to promote the myth of global warming generated by carbon dioxide. That is, it's release of the Treasury Department memo anticipating an increase of $100-$200 billion per year in government revenue through Cap and Trade.
It would be a travesty for government to confiscate $100-$200 billion per year from individuals and industry through taxes and confiscation of assets. However, insult is added to injury when the confiscation also forces industry to large capital investment for CO2 control, when such is not necessary.
How about the part where the Treasury Department blacked out a section at the end of a sentence? Censorship? Action of a dictatorial regime?

Government Climate Strategy

EIN News says, "Interior Launches Climate Strategy; New Council's Aim Is to Help Curb Warming. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar launched the Obama administration's first coordinated response to the impacts of climate change Monday, which he said would both monitor how global warming is altering the nation's landscape and help the country cope with those changes. (washingtonpost.com)".
Notice the confusing aspects of the announcement. The first part says the council will help CURB global warming. The second part (Salazar) says the Interior Department will help the country COPE with global warming changes.
The Earth has experienced global warming and global cooling events for millennia. There is no evidence that man's (scientists like to use the word anthropogenic) activities have any significant effect on global warming.
Bottom line: Government has no business in involving itself in any futile attempt to control global warming or global cooling. Government has a responsibility to collect information and give advice to the public concerning effects of global warming, in the same manner that the weather service, now handles hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural events.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Carbon Dioxide Control in Automotive Vehicles

E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "White House Is Prepared to Set First National Limits on Greenhouse Gases. The Obama administration on Tuesday formally proposed new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, a move that signals the first federal limits on greenhouse-gas pollution. (washingtonpost.com) ".
This is bad news, from several points of view. The White House may be using a tricky maneuver to control generation of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. At least this is what the Washington Post communication is implying.
I remind you at this point that I have previously requested anyone to supply me scientific information that carbon dioxide or any other gas has a significant effect on heat absorption, retention and liberation in Earth's atmosphere to affect surface temperatures. No one has been forthcoming with such information, which allows me to continue my claim that global warming is a myth. Any attempts to develop controls on myths is obviously ridiculous.
The second difficulty, and perhaps more significant, is that Pres. Obama continues to bypass Congress by the issuance of Administrative Directives. This is characteristic of any dictatorial or oligarchic government. Do you plan to continue accepting this domination of power, until there is no possibility for your branch of government to control the direction in which the country moves?

Monday, September 14, 2009

Climate Bill

This message was sent to Representative Neugebauer:

EIN News says, "Climate Bill Politics Are Heating Up: Supporters of Obama's Clean-Energy Plan Say the Issue Is Not Just Jobs. After months of promoting President Obama's climate plan as a vehicle to create millions of clean-energy jobs, supporters of the legislation are increasingly pushing another strategy -- its benefits for national security. (latimes.com)".
Just now, it escapes me as to how a Cap and Trade on carbon dioxide involves national security. Perhaps it will come to me later, or it may be so abstract is to be in the area of a logical fantasy.
Meanwhile, we can remain with the previous conclusion that Cap and Trade on carbon dioxide is only another gimmick by government to increase tax revenues at the expense of the American public, who will bear the brunt by paying higher electricity and heating bills.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Arctic Passage for Shipping

Letter to Congress:

EIN News says, "Arctic Shortcut Beckons Shippers As Ice Thaws. For hundreds of years, mariners have dreamed of an Arctic shortcut that would allow them to speed trade between Asia and the West. Two German ships are poised to complete that transit for the first time, aided by the retreat of Arctic ice that scientists have linked to global warming. (nytimes.com)".
We don't know the cause of the retreat of Arctic ice, which would allow this commercially significant development. It is obviously local warming in the Arctic and may be related to global warming, but the latter is obviously a supposition. It would also be a long stretch to assume that the cause is man-made, especially since records show various periods of global warming on earth, which could not have had any man-made influence.
Whatever the cause, it is an opportunity to take advantage of. Congratulations to the two German ships. Where are the Americans? Has Congress frustrated US entrepreneurs to the extent that they no longer have incentive for development?

Lawsuits on Climate Control

Letter to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Car Dealers' Lawsuit Targets Stricter Vehicle Emissions Rules in California. A federal lawsuit by two industry groups aims to halt the U.S. government and the state of California from moving ahead with new greenhouse gas emissions rules for cars and trucks -- an action that, if successful, could scuttle a key piece of the Obama administration's plans to set stricter nationwide standards for vehicles. (latimes.com)".
Congratulations to the US Chamber of Commerce and the Car Dealers!
There are 2 aspects of vehicle emissions. One borders on climate control,which should have no place in our regulatory system. The other involves pollutants, which have been demonstrated to have negative effects on the health of human beings. We start with looking at the composition of vehicle emissions.
Carbon monoxide is a human poison. It is also an energy loss, because it is a product of the incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel. It is already well-controlled by the use of catalytic converters on vehicles. EPA regulation on permissible concentration in the emission gas would seem appropriate.
Nitrogen oxides are similarly obnoxious. They are also controlled by use of catalytic converters, and EPA regulation seems appropriate.
Particulate matter (soot) is possibly carcinogenic, but there is no clear evidence. However, it does dirty up the area and EPA control on permissible concentration in the emissions could be appropriate.
Lastly, we come to carbon dioxide. It is not a human poison. It can cause suffocation at high concentrations, as can nitrogen, argon, helium, and other biologically inert gases. There is no basis for concentration control in automotive emissions. Any attempts to do so, are a subtle attempt for climate control, based on the myth of greenhouse gases and the associated opportunities of grants, Cap and Trade, etc.
I hope the courts will recognize technical differences, consider the probable attempt at climate control through EPA and the Administration, and disallow the Administration and its agency to overreach in this area.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Trouble in the Tundra

Letter to Editor of Chemical and Engineering News:
I was attracted to your article "Trouble in the Tundra" (8/17/09 Edition; page 39) primarily because of its length. I thought that since it was four pages, there must be something good there.
I read about half of it. I like adventure stories. It isn't an adventure story. I thought maybe it contributes something to the advancement of science. It isn't that. I thought maybe we can find the writers "agenda" from the last paragraph, which is usually the case in most semi-scientific writing. It's there in the last sentence, "Our best mitigation is slowing down overall warming ". Ha! It's CLIMATE CONTROL.
Now I started looking for some of the detail which has led to this author's conclusion. I saw the word "Thermokarst". It's a new word, but is that any reason to beat it to death.
More specifically on detail, it says, "permafrost contains layers upon layers of carbon that has been locked away for tens of thousands of years. This is an important point, because it appears to be factual, rather than an opinion.
When the author talks about "carbon", he likely refers to what we normally call "humus". He likely does not refer to solid carbon, such as anthracite coal or diamond.
Humus is formed from decaying vegetation by the action of soil bacteria. Vegetation is only produced at temperatures above freezing. Similarly, soil bacteria are only active at temperatures above freezing. This means that each layer of humus formed, and which constitutes the permafrost, was generated at a time when temperatures were above freezing.
This means that there were many periods in the tens of thousands of years that temperatures were above freezing. Does this imply that during each of those periods, there was a lot of man-made global warming from automobiles, electricity generation, etc.? That would be a ridiculous assumption. The more likely fact is that global warming has occurred many times in the past, without any involvement by man-made activities.
It would be ridiculous assume that we can control global warming in the Arctic. Let it proceed naturally, as it has done in the past. Why not let nature lay down another "layer of carbon"? There were probably Thermokarsts thousands of years ago. We just weren't around to see them.

Beachfront Property

EIN News says, "Spain's Solar-Power Collapse Dims Subsidy Model. Spain's hopes of becoming a world leader in solar power have collapsed since the Spanish government slammed the brakes on generous subsidies. The sudden change has rippled across the global solar industry, in a warning of the problems that government-supported renewable-energy programs can encounter. (wsj.com)".
They are two aspects to consider in this report; government subsidies and solar power.
Congratulations to the Spanish government, as they realize the untenable position they had previously placed themselves in with respect to generous subsidies. There is only a certain amount of money to go around, and it is Government's responsibility to allocate it properly for society's benefit. Fundamental to this concept is protection against foreign military aggressors, maintenance of civil law and order and other responsibilities designated by the Constitution and its original Amendments.
Some persons believe that there is no limit to availability of funds for Government use. Tax profits or take the total assets from those who have it. Sources would be individuals and corporations. The problem is that in so doing, this would be the killing of the geese that laid the golden eggs. We have seen excessive spending on subsidies, promoted by the Administration and approved by Congress. There's no question that this will lead to disaster. I urge Congress to follow Spain's initiative and "dim the subsidy model".
There is a place for solar power. The conversion rates of solar energy per square meter to electricity have been substantially increased by technological improvements. They may continue to do so. However, this is an operation which should be geared to private enterprise; not to government subsidy. We have an energy problem in this country and will always have. Private industry has the capability of maintaining a reasonable balance between needs (desires) and supply. The difficulty has been the many restrictions placed on private industry by local, state, and federal governments. Government continues to pass restrictive legislation for private industry, with no attempt to remove restrictions. This should be a major revolution of Government.

Solar Power Subsidies

EIN News says, "Spain's Solar-Power Collapse Dims Subsidy Model. Spain's hopes of becoming a world leader in solar power have collapsed since the Spanish government slammed the brakes on generous subsidies. The sudden change has rippled across the global solar industry, in a warning of the problems that government-supported renewable-energy programs can encounter. (wsj.com)".
They are two aspects to consider in this report; government subsidies and solar power.
Congratulations to the Spanish government, as they realize the untenable position they had previously placed themselves in with respect to generous subsidies. There is only a certain amount of money to go around, and it is Government's responsibility to allocate it properly for society's benefit. Fundamental to this concept is protection against foreign military aggressors, maintenance of civil law and order and other responsibilities designated by the Constitution and its original Amendments.
Some persons believe that there is no limit to availability of funds for Government use. Tax profits or take the total assets from those who have it. Sources would be individuals and corporations. The problem is that in so doing, this would be the killing of the geese that laid the golden eggs. We have seen excessive spending on subsidies, promoted by the Administration and approved by Congress. There's no question that this will lead to disaster. I urge Congress to follow Spain's initiative and "dim the subsidy model".
There is a place for solar power. The conversion rates of solar energy per square meter to electricity have been substantially increased by technological improvements. They may continue to do so. However, this is an operation which should be geared to private enterprise; not to government subsidy. We have an energy problem in this country and will always have. Private industry has the capability of maintaining a reasonable balance between needs (desires) and supply. The difficulty has been the many restrictions placed on private industry by local, state, and federal governments. Government continues to pass restrictive legislation for private industry, with no attempt to remove restrictions. This should be a major revolution of Government.